(10-16-2017 12:45 PM)tigernole79 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:32 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:27 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Purdue is in the weaker West side of the Big 10, so don't have to play UM, Sparty, Buckeyes and Penn St. every year, but I get your point. I would say Purdue, unfortunately. At least Purdue has a clear, defined path. Win West, win CCG, and they are in.

And Memphis only scheduling one P5 a year has all but eliminated us, I hate to say. Not that any G5's chances are good anyway.

Yes, maybe our chances are as good as Wake, Vandy, Oregon St. . ., but they basically have no chance also.

I agree Memphis needs to play two P5 schools annually (not to start that discussion again). But I believe the current Memphis scheduling logic is simply to have a shot at the NY6 bowl, nothing more. And apparently the current admin philosophy of playing one P5 is in their opinion the best course.

Here is the ONLY reason for scheduling multiple P5s, but the reason is all but moot because of the P5s. If EVERY team in the AAC played two P5s each season to increase the viability of the AAC. That is a reason I could understand, but the conference wouldn't because it would likely do more harm than good.

The logic of going after the guaranteed bowl as opposed to the almost guaranteed to not go to playoff isn't flawed logic. That is the worst possible reason to schedule multiple P5 games.

I don't agree that conference viability is the ONLY reason for scheduling multiple P5s, or even the main reason. My thought on multiple P5s goes along with the concept posted above about it being a multi-year process for a G5 to get serious consideration for a playoff spot (not counting a perfect storm type situation). If we get to the point of taking care of the Louisiana-Monroe and Southern Illinois type opponents in the realm of how a big P5 does, where the outcome is absolutely not in question, shoot, schedule 3 P5s.

(10-16-2017 09:59 PM)Herff Tiger Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:45 PM)tigernole79 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:32 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:27 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Purdue is in the weaker West side of the Big 10, so don't have to play UM, Sparty, Buckeyes and Penn St. every year, but I get your point. I would say Purdue, unfortunately. At least Purdue has a clear, defined path. Win West, win CCG, and they are in.

And Memphis only scheduling one P5 a year has all but eliminated us, I hate to say. Not that any G5's chances are good anyway.

Yes, maybe our chances are as good as Wake, Vandy, Oregon St. . ., but they basically have no chance also.

I agree Memphis needs to play two P5 schools annually (not to start that discussion again). But I believe the current Memphis scheduling logic is simply to have a shot at the NY6 bowl, nothing more. And apparently the current admin philosophy of playing one P5 is in their opinion the best course.

Here is the ONLY reason for scheduling multiple P5s, but the reason is all but moot because of the P5s. If EVERY team in the AAC played two P5s each season to increase the viability of the AAC. That is a reason I could understand, but the conference wouldn't because it would likely do more harm than good.

The logic of going after the guaranteed bowl as opposed to the almost guaranteed to not go to playoff isn't flawed logic. That is the worst possible reason to schedule multiple P5 games.

I don't agree that conference viability is the ONLY reason for scheduling multiple P5s, or even the main reason. My thought on multiple P5s goes along with the concept posted above about it being a multi-year process for a G5 to get serious consideration for a playoff spot (not counting a perfect storm type situation). If we get to the point of taking care of the Louisiana-Monroe and Southern Illinois type opponents in the realm of how a big P5 does, where the outcome is absolutely not in question, shoot, schedule 3 P5s.

You cant beat up on the bottom 1/2 of the P5 and expect respect and you are not going to get many of the top 1/2 of the P5 to come here if there is even the slightest chance they may lose.

When UCLA scheduled the game we were in the toilet...Bet they don't do it again.

Our only chance is one of the regional SEC schools who will play us is having a very good year.

(10-17-2017 02:46 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 09:59 PM)Herff Tiger Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:45 PM)tigernole79 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:32 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:27 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Purdue is in the weaker West side of the Big 10, so don't have to play UM, Sparty, Buckeyes and Penn St. every year, but I get your point. I would say Purdue, unfortunately. At least Purdue has a clear, defined path. Win West, win CCG, and they are in.

And Memphis only scheduling one P5 a year has all but eliminated us, I hate to say. Not that any G5's chances are good anyway.

Yes, maybe our chances are as good as Wake, Vandy, Oregon St. . ., but they basically have no chance also.

I agree Memphis needs to play two P5 schools annually (not to start that discussion again). But I believe the current Memphis scheduling logic is simply to have a shot at the NY6 bowl, nothing more. And apparently the current admin philosophy of playing one P5 is in their opinion the best course.

Here is the ONLY reason for scheduling multiple P5s, but the reason is all but moot because of the P5s. If EVERY team in the AAC played two P5s each season to increase the viability of the AAC. That is a reason I could understand, but the conference wouldn't because it would likely do more harm than good.

The logic of going after the guaranteed bowl as opposed to the almost guaranteed to not go to playoff isn't flawed logic. That is the worst possible reason to schedule multiple P5 games.

I don't agree that conference viability is the ONLY reason for scheduling multiple P5s, or even the main reason. My thought on multiple P5s goes along with the concept posted above about it being a multi-year process for a G5 to get serious consideration for a playoff spot (not counting a perfect storm type situation). If we get to the point of taking care of the Louisiana-Monroe and Southern Illinois type opponents in the realm of how a big P5 does, where the outcome is absolutely not in question, shoot, schedule 3 P5s.

You cant beat up on the bottom 1/2 of the P5 and expect respect and you are not going to get many of the top 1/2 of the P5 to come here if there is even the slightest chance they may lose.

When UCLA scheduled the game we were in the toilet...Bet they don't do it again.

Our only chance is one of the regional SEC schools who will play us is having a very good year.

I talked to our AD recently & asked directly about scheduling OOC. He indicated that he took advantage of some relationships to schedule several P5 opponents but says since Fuente started winning here even those P5 schools that have previously indicated they will play us H/H are cooling to the idea. He says he can likely get several P5 schools to pay us to come their place to play but with no return date. The interesting comment out of that discussion was that the better Memphis gets, the less a P5 program wants to pay us to come play. I asked specifically about UTK finishing the contract they owe us & he said they won't even talk about it, no way any time soon - but they want to play us in MBB, H/H.

(10-17-2017 03:15 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 02:46 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 09:59 PM)Herff Tiger Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:45 PM)tigernole79 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:32 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  I agree Memphis needs to play two P5 schools annually (not to start that discussion again). But I believe the current Memphis scheduling logic is simply to have a shot at the NY6 bowl, nothing more. And apparently the current admin philosophy of playing one P5 is in their opinion the best course.

Here is the ONLY reason for scheduling multiple P5s, but the reason is all but moot because of the P5s. If EVERY team in the AAC played two P5s each season to increase the viability of the AAC. That is a reason I could understand, but the conference wouldn't because it would likely do more harm than good.

The logic of going after the guaranteed bowl as opposed to the almost guaranteed to not go to playoff isn't flawed logic. That is the worst possible reason to schedule multiple P5 games.

I don't agree that conference viability is the ONLY reason for scheduling multiple P5s, or even the main reason. My thought on multiple P5s goes along with the concept posted above about it being a multi-year process for a G5 to get serious consideration for a playoff spot (not counting a perfect storm type situation). If we get to the point of taking care of the Louisiana-Monroe and Southern Illinois type opponents in the realm of how a big P5 does, where the outcome is absolutely not in question, shoot, schedule 3 P5s.

You cant beat up on the bottom 1/2 of the P5 and expect respect and you are not going to get many of the top 1/2 of the P5 to come here if there is even the slightest chance they may lose.

When UCLA scheduled the game we were in the toilet...Bet they don't do it again.

Our only chance is one of the regional SEC schools who will play us is having a very good year.

I talked to our AD recently & asked directly about scheduling OOC. He indicated that he took advantage of some relationships to schedule several P5 opponents but says since Fuente started winning here even those P5 schools that have previously indicated they will play us H/H are cooling to the idea. He says he can likely get several P5 schools to pay us to come their place to play but with no return date. The interesting comment out of that discussion was that the better Memphis gets, the less a P5 program wants to pay us to come play. I asked specifically about UTK finishing the contract they owe us & he said they won't even talk about it, no way any time soon - but they want to play us in MBB, H/H.

Exactly...

That is why we have to be OK with playing Miss. and Miss. State and any other regional team that is occasionally successful because they are likely the only ones who will schedule us home and home...Otherwise we are going to have to play "Neutral" games or buy games like Boise did in the past.

I'd be all over playing Tenner C neutral in Nashvegas. Every year.

Bowen specifically said it was the Boise State effect in scheduling when he talked with us.

There won't be P5 programs willing to simply schedule us year after year, so I like the way we have been scheduling. We had dozens of GA area recruits lined up for the GA State game this season and I hate that we missed out on that chance.

I don't care about any other G5 program that isn't in the AAC in regards to scheduling. I was trying to say if all the AAC took the route of scheduling multiple P5 teams, if possible, then I would think Memphis should join the rest. It would make the AAC stronger if we won the majority of those games. Having multiple teams in the top 25 helps just as much and only two P5s were played... absolutely it would've helped UCF IF they had played Georgia Tech and won, would've wiped them out of the top 25 if they had lost.

(10-17-2017 02:46 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 09:59 PM)Herff Tiger Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:45 PM)tigernole79 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:32 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:27 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Purdue is in the weaker West side of the Big 10, so don't have to play UM, Sparty, Buckeyes and Penn St. every year, but I get your point. I would say Purdue, unfortunately. At least Purdue has a clear, defined path. Win West, win CCG, and they are in.

And Memphis only scheduling one P5 a year has all but eliminated us, I hate to say. Not that any G5's chances are good anyway.

Yes, maybe our chances are as good as Wake, Vandy, Oregon St. . ., but they basically have no chance also.

I agree Memphis needs to play two P5 schools annually (not to start that discussion again). But I believe the current Memphis scheduling logic is simply to have a shot at the NY6 bowl, nothing more. And apparently the current admin philosophy of playing one P5 is in their opinion the best course.

Here is the ONLY reason for scheduling multiple P5s, but the reason is all but moot because of the P5s. If EVERY team in the AAC played two P5s each season to increase the viability of the AAC. That is a reason I could understand, but the conference wouldn't because it would likely do more harm than good.

The logic of going after the guaranteed bowl as opposed to the almost guaranteed to not go to playoff isn't flawed logic. That is the worst possible reason to schedule multiple P5 games.

I don't agree that conference viability is the ONLY reason for scheduling multiple P5s, or even the main reason. My thought on multiple P5s goes along with the concept posted above about it being a multi-year process for a G5 to get serious consideration for a playoff spot (not counting a perfect storm type situation). If we get to the point of taking care of the Louisiana-Monroe and Southern Illinois type opponents in the realm of how a big P5 does, where the outcome is absolutely not in question, shoot, schedule 3 P5s.

You cant beat up on the bottom 1/2 of the P5 and expect respect and you are not going to get many of the top 1/2 of the P5 to come here if there is even the slightest chance they may lose.

When UCLA scheduled the game we were in the toilet...Bet they don't do it again.

Our only chance is one of the regional SEC schools who will play us is having a very good year.

"You cant beat up on the bottom 1/2 of the P5 and expect respect"

Agreed. I wasn't thinking in terms of national respect. You see how the posts on here are and how the opinion around town is when we play a SunBelt or MAC team. I was saying schedule multiple P5s, IF possible, at the appropriate time in the program's progress in order to generate more fan interest / local buzz and begin that multi-year process of maybe getting "good" wins.

"you are not going to get many of the top 1/2 of the P5 to come here if there is even the slightest chance they may lose"

Right. The only caveat is if they start getting pressured to not play the lower level teams for a guaranteed win, a la the "no FCS" rule. Heck, you would probably have trouble getting lower 1/2 P5 opponents because they need their wins when they know they are going to lose 4 conference games.

Yeah, no more UCLA. No more Kansas probably (not that they had much allure anyway).

About the regional SEC teams, when we start competing for recruits, they might begin wanting to play in town in order to get in front of those recruits.

(10-17-2017 04:13 PM)tigernole79 Wrote:  Bowen specifically said it was the Boise State effect in scheduling when he talked with us.

There won't be P5 programs willing to simply schedule us year after year, so I like the way we have been scheduling. We had dozens of GA area recruits lined up for the GA State game this season and I hate that we missed out on that chance.

I don't care about any other G5 program that isn't in the AAC in regards to scheduling. I was trying to say if all the AAC took the route of scheduling multiple P5 teams, if possible, then I would think Memphis should join the rest. It would make the AAC stronger if we won the majority of those games. Having multiple teams in the top 25 helps just as much and only two P5s were played... absolutely it would've helped UCF IF they had played Georgia Tech and won, would've wiped them out of the top 25 if they had lost.

Yeah, I get what you were saying, and I agree that it is better if all the AAC schedule multiple P5 teams.

As far as other G5, people around here look down on the MAC (inappropriately I think), so there is not really much to chose from that would get interest. Maybe Colorado State or New Mexico or NM State because they are the state-wide school. Boise State of course. Western KY would surely like to point out that we shouldn't look down on them. Southern Miss would get a little interest. I would sort of like to see LA Tech. Maybe Toledo is a little more of a recognized MAC team.

Who do we have coming up, GA State, Ark State, North Texas, South Alabama? GA State and Ark State are not as high in the national opinion as CO State and NM State.

(10-17-2017 10:19 PM)Herff Tiger Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 02:46 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 09:59 PM)Herff Tiger Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:45 PM)tigernole79 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:32 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  I agree Memphis needs to play two P5 schools annually (not to start that discussion again). But I believe the current Memphis scheduling logic is simply to have a shot at the NY6 bowl, nothing more. And apparently the current admin philosophy of playing one P5 is in their opinion the best course.

Here is the ONLY reason for scheduling multiple P5s, but the reason is all but moot because of the P5s. If EVERY team in the AAC played two P5s each season to increase the viability of the AAC. That is a reason I could understand, but the conference wouldn't because it would likely do more harm than good.

The logic of going after the guaranteed bowl as opposed to the almost guaranteed to not go to playoff isn't flawed logic. That is the worst possible reason to schedule multiple P5 games.

I don't agree that conference viability is the ONLY reason for scheduling multiple P5s, or even the main reason. My thought on multiple P5s goes along with the concept posted above about it being a multi-year process for a G5 to get serious consideration for a playoff spot (not counting a perfect storm type situation). If we get to the point of taking care of the Louisiana-Monroe and Southern Illinois type opponents in the realm of how a big P5 does, where the outcome is absolutely not in question, shoot, schedule 3 P5s.

You cant beat up on the bottom 1/2 of the P5 and expect respect and you are not going to get many of the top 1/2 of the P5 to come here if there is even the slightest chance they may lose.

When UCLA scheduled the game we were in the toilet...Bet they don't do it again.

Our only chance is one of the regional SEC schools who will play us is having a very good year.

"You cant beat up on the bottom 1/2 of the P5 and expect respect"

Agreed. I wasn't thinking in terms of national respect. You see how the posts on here are and how the opinion around town is when we play a SunBelt or MAC team. I was saying schedule multiple P5s, IF possible, at the appropriate time in the program's progress in order to generate more fan interest / local buzz and begin that multi-year process of maybe getting "good" wins.

"you are not going to get many of the top 1/2 of the P5 to come here if there is even the slightest chance they may lose"

Right. The only caveat is if they start getting pressured to not play the lower level teams for a guaranteed win, a la the "no FCS" rule. Heck, you would probably have trouble getting lower 1/2 P5 opponents because they need their wins when they know they are going to lose 4 conference games.

Yeah, no more UCLA. No more Kansas probably (not that they had much allure anyway).

About the regional SEC teams, when we start competing for recruits, they might begin wanting to play in town in order to get in front of those recruits.

I think that if P5 teams get pressure to not schedule easy wins will just schedule P5 teams at the bottom of other leagues instead of taking a risk losing to an outsider.

Heck I think some leagues have some rules in place that require they play other P5 teams with a few exceptions (Boise, BYI...), it would help if we can get added to that exceptions list.

I think we can get P5's all day long, but we have to market as a destination.

Teams visiting town have commented consistently on visiting the Civil Rights museum.

Fans love Beale and Graceland etc.

The UCLA alumni picked us as their one travel game.

It's the kind of away game every player and fan should experience. We can sell that. It would be even better if we could get the fans and band on board for some fun hospitality.

(10-18-2017 01:58 PM)Claw Wrote:  I think we can get P5's all day long, but we have to market as a destination.

Teams visiting town have commented consistently on visiting the Civil Rights museum.

Fans love Beale and Graceland etc.

The UCLA alumni picked us as their one travel game.

It's the kind of away game every player and fan should experience. We can sell that. It would be even better if we could get the fans and band on board for some fun hospitality.

AD's aren't travel agents. I doubt the fan experience makes much difference. Even if it did, Tulane (NOLA) or UCF (Orlando) would have us beat in that category.

(10-18-2017 02:26 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(10-18-2017 01:58 PM)Claw Wrote:  I think we can get P5's all day long, but we have to market as a destination.

Teams visiting town have commented consistently on visiting the Civil Rights museum.

Fans love Beale and Graceland etc.

The UCLA alumni picked us as their one travel game.

It's the kind of away game every player and fan should experience. We can sell that. It would be even better if we could get the fans and band on board for some fun hospitality.

AD's aren't travel agents. I doubt the fan experience makes much difference. Even if it did, Tulane (NOLA) or UCF (Orlando) would have us beat in that category.

In today's climate, a team tour of the Civil Rights Museum could be a deal closer.

If we are having difficulty booking P5 home games we should be doing all of this and more. We have a business school that can do all of this for the football program.

(10-15-2017 09:48 AM)3601 Wrote:  11-1 Memphis vs. 12-0 UCF in AAC Championship Game.

They still have to play Navy and USF. They could lose to either one of those teams
Maybe both?

(10-17-2017 10:45 PM)Herff Tiger Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 04:13 PM)tigernole79 Wrote:  Bowen specifically said it was the Boise State effect in scheduling when he talked with us.

There won't be P5 programs willing to simply schedule us year after year, so I like the way we have been scheduling. We had dozens of GA area recruits lined up for the GA State game this season and I hate that we missed out on that chance.

I don't care about any other G5 program that isn't in the AAC in regards to scheduling. I was trying to say if all the AAC took the route of scheduling multiple P5 teams, if possible, then I would think Memphis should join the rest. It would make the AAC stronger if we won the majority of those games. Having multiple teams in the top 25 helps just as much and only two P5s were played... absolutely it would've helped UCF IF they had played Georgia Tech and won, would've wiped them out of the top 25 if they had lost.

Yeah, I get what you were saying, and I agree that it is better if all the AAC schedule multiple P5 teams.

As far as other G5, people around here look down on the MAC (inappropriately I think), so there is not really much to chose from that would get interest. Maybe Colorado State or New Mexico or NM State because they are the state-wide school. Boise State of course. Western KY would surely like to point out that we shouldn't look down on them. Southern Miss would get a little interest. I would sort of like to see LA Tech. Maybe Toledo is a little more of a recognized MAC team.

Who do we have coming up, GA State, Ark State, North Texas, South Alabama? GA State and Ark State are not as high in the national opinion as CO State and NM State.

Our best G5 option for respectability and competition would be an arrangement with the MWC. They are always right behind us in power rankings and always have a handful of very competitive teams. However, it's tough travel.

If you look at what we're doing with our OOC G5 games, we're setting games in recruiting areas that are easy travel.

(10-18-2017 02:26 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(10-18-2017 01:58 PM)Claw Wrote:  I think we can get P5's all day long, but we have to market as a destination.

Teams visiting town have commented consistently on visiting the Civil Rights museum.

Fans love Beale and Graceland etc.

The UCLA alumni picked us as their one travel game.

It's the kind of away game every player and fan should experience. We can sell that. It would be even better if we could get the fans and band on board for some fun hospitality.

AD's aren't travel agents. I doubt the fan experience makes much difference. Even if it did, Tulane (NOLA) or UCF (Orlando) would have us beat in that category.

USF, Temple, SMU, Navy - pretty decent selling points there too.

(10-15-2017 09:48 AM)3601 Wrote:  11-1 Memphis vs. 12-0 UCF in AAC Championship Game.

BUMP!

(10-16-2017 10:33 AM)aardWolf Wrote:  Best case scenario: Alabama decides to protest on no G5s being allowed into the playoff, and gives their slot (and payout) to Memphis. We hold Clemson scoreless in the championship, and UTK is forced to pay AAC exit fees as we replace Ole Miss in the SEC when the NCAA shuts down their football program. Thus starts our 25 year streak of football national championships.

I like the way you think.

(10-18-2017 02:40 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(10-18-2017 02:26 PM)3601 Wrote:  

(10-18-2017 01:58 PM)Claw Wrote:  I think we can get P5's all day long, but we have to market as a destination.

Teams visiting town have commented consistently on visiting the Civil Rights museum.

Fans love Beale and Graceland etc.

The UCLA alumni picked us as their one travel game.

It's the kind of away game every player and fan should experience. We can sell that. It would be even better if we could get the fans and band on board for some fun hospitality.

AD's aren't travel agents. I doubt the fan experience makes much difference. Even if it did, Tulane (NOLA) or UCF (Orlando) would have us beat in that category.

In today's climate, a team tour of the Civil Rights Museum could be a deal closer.

If we are having difficulty booking P5 home games we should be doing all of this and more. We have a business school that can do all of this for the football program.

P5's don't want to play an out of conference game on the road against a high powered offense. They would rather pay you to come to them. UGA paid Appl State $1 million for a game.

We will be 10-1 when we win out.